I hate the debate over “what is art”. Honestly I think the best answer I could give to the question is “something that was ruined by a bunch of idiots asking ‘what is art’”.
That said, and not wanting to go into that discussion, calling this guy an “artist” seems like a mockery. He’s not an artist, he’s just some idiot with double sided tape.
i’ve heard similar arguments against rap music that it’s not actually music or that producers aren’t musicians if they sample. people always try to diminish new forms by being elitist
Run all the samples through a computer, write a prompt telling it to create music in the style of (x), and keep tweaking the prompt to reiterate the result until something desirable emerges. No skill or understanding of music required, just keep hitting “generate” or whatever until something gets spit out that sounds good.
Vs
Thousands of hours of music making experience, understanding of musical styles, lyric arrangement, composition, heck…even music theory and the ability to read and write musical notes…and take all of that and make something original that, with permission of the original artist, uses modified clips of others’ tracks.
Only with all other art till now most every element is a conscious decision by the artist with intent. Most AI “artists” don’t have a clue what’s actually in their “own” images. Any emotional reaction is a byproduct of the training data (which was created largely by real artists with intent). In which cases the audience would likely understand the history and context of a piece better than the person who typed the prompt. This is nothing at all like other technical developments even though they did indeed see pushback.
Authors/artist intent matters about as much as a warm shit in a shoe when it comes to deciding what is or is not art.
The literal only thing that matters is if the viewer thinks it’s art.
Art is in the eye of the beholder full stop.
The only thing author/artist intent is good for is scholastic endeavours. Valuable and useful in its own right, but the defining aspect of art it is not.
I hate the debate over “what is art”. Honestly I think the best answer I could give to the question is “something that was ruined by a bunch of idiots asking ‘what is art’”.
That said, and not wanting to go into that discussion, calling this guy an “artist” seems like a mockery. He’s not an artist, he’s just some idiot with double sided tape.
im not sure i agree.
i’ve heard similar arguments against rap music that it’s not actually music or that producers aren’t musicians if they sample. people always try to diminish new forms by being elitist
Run all the samples through a computer, write a prompt telling it to create music in the style of (x), and keep tweaking the prompt to reiterate the result until something desirable emerges. No skill or understanding of music required, just keep hitting “generate” or whatever until something gets spit out that sounds good.
Vs
Thousands of hours of music making experience, understanding of musical styles, lyric arrangement, composition, heck…even music theory and the ability to read and write musical notes…and take all of that and make something original that, with permission of the original artist, uses modified clips of others’ tracks.
Sampling isn’t the defining difference.
I think that art can be defined as a creation that elicits an emotional response. The method of creation has little to do with it.
Whenever digital artists started becoming a thing, they were gatekept as well.
Only with all other art till now most every element is a conscious decision by the artist with intent. Most AI “artists” don’t have a clue what’s actually in their “own” images. Any emotional reaction is a byproduct of the training data (which was created largely by real artists with intent). In which cases the audience would likely understand the history and context of a piece better than the person who typed the prompt. This is nothing at all like other technical developments even though they did indeed see pushback.
Authors/artist intent matters about as much as a warm shit in a shoe when it comes to deciding what is or is not art.
The literal only thing that matters is if the viewer thinks it’s art.
Art is in the eye of the beholder full stop.
The only thing author/artist intent is good for is scholastic endeavours. Valuable and useful in its own right, but the defining aspect of art it is not.
If ai art makes you upset it’s art. People who argue that ai art isn’t art are having an emotional reaction thus it’s art.
i experience an emotional reaction when i step in shit too